Scepcop wrote:Check out this new great summary of critical objective evidence contradicting the official 9-11 story which will convince fence sitters, presented by Richard Gage of AE911Truth.org:

Hold on to your socks, but I actually watched this!!! Absolutely nothing new and it's the same ol' half truths and biased jargon he's been spitting out for years now. This wouldn't convince the most leaning of "fence sitters" if they look at this video objectively and realize he doesn't present a shred of evidence that he's making claims about (thermite, for example). Overall, I would give him an "Incomplete" rather than the "F" he comically gives the Commission's report.

WTF are you talking about? Are you saying that because you've been paid to? No honest person would say that. What did Gage say that was untrue? Be specific.

Did you see the part where he explained why a car can't smash through a big rig truck? Did you understand the point he was trying to make?

Are you sure you're not sitting in an NSA or CoIntel Pro office, where you are assigned to argue with everything that's true?

“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Scepcop wrote:Are you sure you're not sitting in an NSA or CoIntel Pro office, where you are assigned to argue with everything that's true?

Scepcop, this site was on life support when I joined, and frankly, despite some new blood, still is. The way I see it, it is the skeptics who have kept this site going. If not, it would have faded away.

Scepcop wrote:Are you sure you're not sitting in an NSA or CoIntel Pro office, where you are assigned to argue with everything that's true?

Scepcop, this site was on life support when I joined, and frankly, despite some new blood, still is. The way I see it, it is the skeptics who have kept this site going. If not, it would have faded away.

I agree. Only been here a while, but nothing ever gets discussed properly when emotional posting happens. If something someone says irks you then it is always prudent to step away for a while before posting back. Idolatry of any position is fundamentalism and being convinced of an argument is not skepticism.

The only way to be absolutely sure about everything is to absolutely sure one has all the facts and that all the facts presented are true. It makes much more sense to work on probabilities.

If you think you know what's going on you're probably full of shit - Robert Anton Wilson

It's not always easy to get people to look at the proof that the government did it. We can get people's attention with something really clear that doesn't take long to look at such as this.http://0911.voila.net/index4.htm(fifth picture from top)

We can get people's attention with something really clear that doesn't take long to look at such as this.http://0911.voila.net/index4.htm(fifth picture from top)

What about it?

You're being deliberately obtuse. It's a proof that the craft that hit the Pentagon was too short to be a 757. Therefore, terrorists didn't fly flight 77 into the Pentagon. Therefore, 9/11 was an inside job.

FatFreddy wrote:You're being deliberately obtuse. It's a proof that the craft that hit the Pentagon was too short to be a 757. Therefore, terrorists didn't fly flight 77 into the Pentagon. Therefore, 9/11 was an inside job.

Uhhhhh, no it's not "proof." Far from it. Do your own research Mr. Freddy. I beg of you.

I would say that the folks over on the Randi forums showed quite extensively how your math was wrong so I won't go there (besides, I was a management professor, not a mathematician.)

What your math doesn't show are the hundreds of witnesses (including several friends of mine) who were there. They saw plane wreckage and body parts with their own eyes. I'm not sure how to tell them they were hallucinating.

Also, one thing that has always made me wonder about CTers is what, exactly, are they comparing with what happens when a 757 flies into the Pentagon? How hard were the walls? How easy do wings pin back? Is there a previous example of this happening? If so, would it always happen the same way?

Here's something else.http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson(excerpt)------------------------------------------------------------------------------------In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft — and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. This is because every military and civilian passenger-carrying aircraft have many parts that are identified for safety of flight. That is, if any of the parts were to fail at any time during a flight, the failure would likely result in the catastrophic loss of aircraft and passengers. Consequently, these parts are individually controlled by a distinctive serial number and tracked by a records section of the maintenance operation and by another section called plans and scheduling.

FatFreddy wrote:All the wreckage that was there was plantable and bodies could have been planted in the part of the Pentagon that was destroyed beforehand.

Yea, 'cause there was a lot of time from the moment of impact until cameras and witnesses were all over that area. (sarcasm intentional)Sorry Freddy, but your evidence just doesn't hold up. Witnesses seeing slightly different things may be consistent with a conspiracy (?), but it's also consistent with human nature. The point is, a lot of people died at the Pentagon. To say that it wasn't AA77 means that you have to find that plane with all of the people that are missing from that flight. Additionally, think about this, if our government wanted to damage the Pentagon, an aircraft flying into the building would have been the best way to do it? Why would ANYONE risk exposure to a conspiracy by flying a missile (or whatever) when it would have been exponentially easier to have just done it the way it happened?Again, my life was impacted severely by the events of that day and many of my friends were there so yea, there's some personal emotion and first-hand knowledge. But trust me Freddy, AA Flight 77 flew into the Pentagon on 9/11/01.

To say that it wasn't AA77 means that you have to find that plane with all of the people that are missing from that flight.

No it doesn't. It's perfectly plausible that all four planes landed at military bases and the passengers were disposed of and chop jobs were done on the planes.

Additionally, think about this, if our government wanted to damage the Pentagon, an aircraft flying into the building would have been the best way to do it? Why would ANYONE risk exposure to a conspiracy by flying a missile (or whatever) when it would have been exponentially easier to have just done it the way it happened?

To say that it wasn't AA77 means that you have to find that plane with all of the people that are missing from that flight.

No it doesn't. It's perfectly plausible that all four planes landed at military bases and the passengers were disposed of and chop jobs were done on the planes.

Additionally, think about this, if our government wanted to damage the Pentagon, an aircraft flying into the building would have been the best way to do it? Why would ANYONE risk exposure to a conspiracy by flying a missile (or whatever) when it would have been exponentially easier to have just done it the way it happened?

I'm sorry, but I will refuse to respond to anything in reference to killtown. His posts have been shown over and over through the years to be inaccurate as well as his insensitivity to the families of the tragedy. And in response to your comment, no, it is not "perfectly plausible that all four planes landed at military bases and the passengers were disposed of and chop jobs were done on the planes." It is not plausible at all. Although I try to remember that nothing is impossible, I would say that the plausibility that you presented is about as close to impossible as there is.